Let's not even visit the historically bass-ackwards inaccuracy of that hateful remark. No Democrat will ever own up to their own party's past as the party of slavery, KKK, and Jim Crow.

Actually, Al Sharpton looks at white people like Hitler looks at Jews, a'ight? He has the audacity to use a Hitler/Jew reference to smear anybody? This Jew-hater loves Hitler, all right? He loves the idea of groups of people he hates getting killed indiscriminately, especially Jews.

That's not slander. That's the truth. Because it's happened at least twice! He started riots that resulted in the killing of Jews back in the early 1990's. And recently, with the complete and open approval of another piece of excrement known as Barack Hussein Obama, he's incited riots and killings of white people by making libelous comments involving the Trayvon Martin shooting.

This pathetic excuse for a human being should be fired from his pathetic show. And his show on MSWTF.

I wonder if Obama would man up for once in his doped up life and condemn these shameful slanderous statements. Obama needs to explain why he keeps inviting his vicious hater to the White House or apologize.

After all, President Hope&Change is all about civility, right? Not even full swing into the presidential race, he's also lamenting the lies, incivility, and nastiness that supposedly comes from the other side. Except all the lies, incivility, and nastiness comes from him and his side.

I'm serious. Barack Obama needs to distance himself from this lying, racist hater. If he doesn't, I will interpret his inaction as complicit approval.

CORRECTION (May 30): Actually it was not Sharpton who said these words. A guest (unidentified in Maloney's clip) said that Hitler dehumanized Jews to justify wiping them out and that's what she sees with Republicans and blacks. Sharpton expressed full agreement with this analogy several times during the exchange and then moved on.

So then it both Sharpton's guest and Sharpton himself who are guilty of disgustingly analogizing Hitler vis a vis the Jews with Republicans and blacks. It is malicious and it is false. He still needs to apologize and his pal Obama needs to man up and condemn it.

Tuesday, March 06, 2012

Andrew Breitbart was a giant in his field who accomplished more than most men could in ten lifetimes in his all too short forty-three years and he has deserved every kind thing that has been written about him since. But rather than being just one more person saying nice things about a great man, it seems more appropriate to pay respect to Breitbart by continuing his work. Breitbart loved nothing better than exposing the festering anger and hatred at the heart of modern liberalism. That's why he retweeted the sick and demented things that liberals said about him on Twitter and it's why, in honor of Andrew Breitbart, here are 20 examples of liberal hatred on display.

Friday, October 07, 2011

Ya know, sometimes the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart gets it right. In fact, I’ve even commended him on this blog when he does.

This, however, is not one of these times. Wednesday night he wondered out loud why conservatives were criticizing the Occupy Wall Street protests now going on nationwide, arguing:

I don’t get it! Here’s a group of Americans, disenchanted, railing against big government bailouts, angry because they played by the rules, worked hard, now they’re in debt from student loans and they’re unemployed… I mean, look, if this thing turns into throwing trash cans into Starbucks windows, nobody’s going to be down with that. We all love Starbucks.

But these protesters, how are they not like the Tea Party? Alright, some of them, you know, smoke and have pants made out of pot. So call them the THC Party. Aren’t these folks real citizens with real problems? Aren’t they also speaking for America?

I guess an adequate proficiency in criticial thinking skills was not a requirement for Stewart’s position at Comedy Central.

OK, Jon, really? You actually need it explained to you how OWS is not like the Tea Party? Other than at the former they’re smoking lots of weed. Fine …

Of course, I’m not the first one to note the obiously stark contrasts between OWS and TP. Wednesday morning, even before Stewart’s broadcast, my girl Ann (Coulter) wrote:

I am not the first to note the vast differences between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers. To name three: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point.

No one knows what the Wall Street protesters want—as is typical of mobs. They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate “Wall Street.” You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government.

This would be like opposing fattening, processed foods, but cheering Michael Moore—which the protesters also did this week.

But to me, the most striking difference between the tea partiers and the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd—besides the smell of patchouli—is how liberal protesters must claim their every gathering is historic and heroic. …

The modern tea partiers never went around narcissistically comparing themselves to Gen. George Washington. And yet they are the ones who have engaged in the kind of political activity Washington fought for.

The Tea Party name is meant in fun, inspired by an amusing rant from CNBC’s Rick Santelli in February 2009, when he called for another Tea Party in response to Obama’s plan to bail-out irresponsible mortgagers.

The tea partiers didn’t arrogantly claim to be drafting a new Declaration of Independence. They’re perfectly happy with the original.

Tea partiers didn’t block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public. They read the Constitution, made serious policy arguments, and petitioned the government against Obama’s unconstitutional big government policies, especially the stimulus bill and Obamacare.

Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning.

In the two years following the movement’s inception, the Tea Party played a major role in turning Teddy Kennedy’s seat over to a Republican, making the sainted Chris Christie governor of New Jersey, and winning a gargantuan, historic Republican landslide in the 2010 elections. They are probably going to succeed in throwing out a president in next year’s election. …

So, if I may humbly pick up where Coulter left off, here are just a few way that OWS is completely different from the TP:

1. The Tea Party’s key demand is to restore the size and reach of government to that enshrined by the Framers in the Constitution. The Tea Party wants lower taxes, less regulation, less federal spending, and less intervention by the federal government into citizen’s private lives and businesses. To reiterate, the Tea Party’s rule book is the U.S. Constitution; they want to restore America to what it was supposed to be, as prescribed by the Framers. Thus, the Tea Party’s goals are spec ifically and uniquely American.

By stark contrast, the demands of OWS are for more taxes, more regulation, more federal spending (on them, of course), and more government intervention in people’s private lives and businesses (not theirs of course, just those of the eeeeevil rich).

Have you even seen a reference to the Founding Documents at an OWS? Of course not. Then there would be no room to display to Marx and Lenin literature. If you listen to any of the myriad demands of OWS attendees, it is clear they seek a revolution (their words, not mine) and start from scratch based on a Marxist-socialist model. Thus, OWS’s goals are spec ifically and uniquely un-American. They are not, as Jon Stewart ridiculous suggested “speaking for America.”

2. The Tea Party consists predominantly of the nation’s producers, those who own businesses and employ people, older citizens who have worked their entire lives to secure a home and retirement but who are seeing the value of their investments plummet and the financial security of their offspring diminish. They are, as Obama likes to say, “working Americans.” They value success and don’t want to see it punished—by the government or anyone.

On the other hand, The so-called occupants of Wall Street are primarily aging hippies, avowed Marxists and socialists, professional protesters like MoveOn.org and Code Pink, and tattooed, multiple-earringed, rainbow-haired twentysomethings who in all their years of college apparently never learned one single damn thing about how the economy works. They resent success and exist precisely to see it punished.

3. One can safely guess Tea Partiers are mostly members of the 53% who pay some sort of the share of the nation’s income tax burden. From them you’ll hear messages of personal responsibility, hard work, and absolute moral standards that are essential for a prosperous civil society.

On the other hand, despite their martyr-like “99%” moniker, it would be safe to say that OWS participants are part of the 47% of Americans who receive rather than contribute to the income tax burden of the U.S. They are members of your quintessential entitlement generation, having been reared in a liberal-dominated educational system rooted in self-esteem, multiculturalism, and a “whatever feels right is right” code of morality. Their sense of personal responsibility is as developed as the horns growing out of my Jewish head.

4. Whereas the Tea Party was falsely accused of being corporate-funded conservative-media-backed “astroturf,” when it is a legitimely grassroots movement, there’s evidence that OWJ has big-powered and big-moneyed support, including unions and Hollywood useful idiots like Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon.

5. As documented by Brent Bozell and the folks at NewsBusters, the peaceful assemblies known as the Tea Party have been fallaciously depicted by the mainstream media as violent, angry, dangerous, and extremist mobs.

By stark contrast, the actually violent, angry, dangerous, and extremist mobs called OWS have been championed by the MSM as the nation’s most beautiful display of democracy in action. The blatantly biased culprits include the NY Times, CNN, NBC, the NY Times again, NBC again, ABC and the NY Times yet again.

6. The Tea Party was (and still is) relentlessly smeared by the highest officials in the federal government. A prime example is Nancy Pelosi. Keeping his own hands clean, Obama gleefully allowed then-House Majority Speaker to swing mercilessly at them. First, she accused them of being “astroturf” being funded by big-moneyed people. Then, she likened them to Nazis and spun public tales about seeing swastikaaaaahs. She mocked them in March, 2010, as she emerged from the Capitol building upon the passage of the Obama(S)care bill, wielding that huge gavel and cackling like the Wicked Witch of the West as she walked through an understandably angry crowd. She also said the Tea Party’s supposedly violent rhetoric reminded her of the social unrest that occurred in San Francisco in 1978, the year gay mayor Harvey Milk was murdered.

“God bless them for their spontaneity,” Pelosi told reporters. “It’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused and it’s going to be effective.” Queen Nancy also said, “The focus is on Wall Street and justifiably so,” Pelosi said. “The message of the American people is that no longer … will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street.”

Actually, the focus on Wall Street is not justified, San Fran Nan. Rather, the correct message is that the recklessness of you and your fellow Democrats in Congress and the White House is what has caused massive joblessness on Main Street.” That was the message of the Tea Party, of course, and you have spent the past two years smearing and libeling them.

Veep Joe Biden has also recently smeared the Tea Party as “barbarians at the gate” in the presence of none other than the Community-Organizer-in-Chief himself. That was at the same event where Union thugster Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., said they needed to “take the sons of bitches out” and that those present were Obama’s army that were ‘ready to march,” also to Obama’s approval. So much for that New Civility Obama preached about this January in Tucson.

What about the malcontents at OWS? Yesterday Obama incredibly legitimized them by declaring that they “expresses the frustrations that the American people feel.”

No, that would be the Tea Party, you a-hole. (Oooooo, someone better let AttaaaaackWaaaaatch know I just called the president an a-hole!)

7. As far as I know, no one at a Tea Party has called for the targets being beheaded (compliments of Hollywood actress and “comedienne” Rosanne Barr) or eaten.

I don’t believe a Tea Partier has suggested people kill their parents either, as did this clearly frustrated gay guy at OWS. While the Tea Party is accused of violent, hateful rhetoric despite no substantive evidence, the violent rhetoric of OWS is boldly on display.

Hell, even their name contains “occupy,” which is a military term meaning to overtake by means of physical force!

8. As far as I know, no throng of Tea Partiers has blocked traffic or overtaken bridges, nor have they started brawls with police and gotten pepper-sprayed and arrested on masse. This, of course, has been happening nationwide at OWS protests.

9. As far as I know, no Tea Partiers have blamed the Jews for our economic mess or hurled antisemitic slurs at people, such as at leastfourwhichhave occurred at OWS rallies.

10. As far as I know, none of the lovely ladies of the Tea Party movement have gone topless or in bras to make their points. If, however, you’d like to see young ladies publicly brandishing their bras or bearing their breasts for their cause, please head to your nearest OWS protest [h/t Mike Haltman at the Political Commentator].

So there you are, Jon Stewart. Merely ten of the myriad ways Occupy Wall Street is nothing like the Tea Party. Put that in your hash pipe and smoke it.

And for those of you at OWS who need a job, there might be a spot for you over at Comedy Central. Apparently, having a properly functioning brain is not a job requirement.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

There are a lot of curse words coming to mind having read Paul Krugman's blog post in today's (Sept. 11) NY Times. For now I'll just call him a very despicable, partisan, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt excuse for a human being. Here is just a part of this atrocity of a piece -- for which he has deliberately disallowed comments from online readers:

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

The reason I call Krugman despicable and partisan is because he has the audacity to call the nation's only leaders "fake heroes". How dare you, Krugman, you piece of you-know-what? Kerik, Giuliani, and especially Bush were real leaders on 9/11 and afterward. They acted like adults and made tough on-the-spot decisions. Krugman wouldn't know what a real hero is because his heroes include Barack Hussein Obama, himself a despicable, partisan, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt excuse for a human being. Krugman's hero is, as Rush Limbaugh calls him, a "man-child," an immature petulant little brat who even nearly three years into his presidency blames everyone else for his own failures.

Why hypocritical? Krugman accuses professional pundits "who should have understood what was happening" of taking the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the alleged corruption of the "neocons"? The only pundits I followed were those who understood that the world has good and evil and that it was not only morally correct but life-saving to take a side. My favorite pundits understood that for at least a decade prior to 9/11 a vicious sect of Muslim radicals had been metastasizing into a worldwide cult of murderous terrorists. Manhattan and Washington D.C. were simply their latest target; they had already successfully bombed several U.S. embassies and military entities. And when that happened Bill Clinton -- another one of Krugman's "heroes" -- took the easy way out and turned a blind eye!

On the contrary, it was Krugman himself as well as his colleagues at the Bush Sucks Times and other liberal media outlets who used their word processors and microphones to commit what I would call treasonous acts against this nation. It is Krugman and company who gave aid and comfort to our nation's enemies with their Bush- and America-bashing rhetoric. It is Krugman and company who turned a non-story like Abu Ghraib not only into a weapon to bash Bush with, but as a motivation for radical Muslims around the world to hate America even more! It is Krugman and company that made up libelous accusations against our military, who made up stories about Qurans being flushed down toilets at Club G'tmo, who made it a point to lie about Bush's own military record when a certain Communism-loving traitor named John Kerry -- yet another one of Krugman's "heroes" -- ran against him in 2004. It is Krugman and company who have created the disgusting myth that America suffers from an epidemic of "Islamophobia," when the truth is that even after 9/11 Muslims have had it pretty damn good here. It is Krugman and company who have emboldened radical Muslims in this country by threatening Americans with litigation if they report the "wrong people" (read: non-white) doing something suspicious on a plane.

Finally, the hypocrical and morally bankrupt Krugman writes that the memory of 9/11 has been "poisoned" and has become "an occasion for shame." I actually agree with that, but not for the same reasons. It is leftists like Krugman who have poisoned and shamed the memory of 9/11. They barely refuse to even mention that it was radical Muslims who committed 9/11, or the London train bombing, or Mumbai, or Bali, or Fort Hood, etc., etc. They don't even want you to know that since 9/11 Muslims have murdered over 17,000 human beings in the name of their religion. The words "Muslim" and "Islam" have been all but whitewashed from the mere 1o-year-old history of 9/11, when it should be the central focus. It is leftists like Krugman who have poisoned 9/11 by turning it into a day of self-reflection (What did we do to provoke them?), a day of community service, of celebrating diversity and discussing bullying and other forms of multiculti liberal crapola. Radical Muslims have had no problem calling us out as the enemy. It's in their books and TV shows (even for children), newspapers, mosques, and manifestos, and yet the only time head-up-their-ass loony leftists like Krugman do not bring up the M- or I-word is when it's an opportunity to write about how Americans are somehow terrorizing them. Sorry, Krugman, you little know-nothing twerp, it is people like you who have taken the easy way out and turned the other way to the reality called Islamic jihad. It is people like you who have poisoned the day and shamed the memory of those who lost their lives. And it is leftists (not Krugman himself but they know who they are) who poisoned 9/11 by calling it an "inside job" created by Bush and Cheney and their cabal of "neocons" and "oil buddies".

Do NOT think that just because 9/11 is already 10 years past that you can rewrite history so easy.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Dana Loesch at Big Journalism goes off on a "senior writer" at the Florida Sun Sentinel for bigoted and ignorant words about Congressman Allen West. Will anyone notice?

Florida Sun Sentinel Senior Editorial writer Nicole Brochu yesterday published what I generously call a poorly-written rant worthy of print only on a bathroom wall. It’s embarrassing that this was treated as a serious editorial and published under the newspaper’s masthead. Surely the Sun Sentinel’s standards for publication have yet to sink so low that hysterically bitter diatribes insulting the service of an American veteran and sitting congressman are considered acceptable for publication. It is the single most embarrassing newspaper column from a “senior writer” I’ve ever seen in print. That’s quite a feat.

Brochu writes:

Someone really needs to put some duct tape over Allen West’s mouth.

Not only is the man embarrassing himself as an American, and as a military veteran who supposedly fought for the U.S. principles of freedom and equality, but for an elected leader to spout the kind of anti-Muslim invective constantly streaming from West’s mouth is an embarrassment to our country.

Someone needs to bind Brochu’s fingers with duct tape to prevent her from further assaulting the art of writing a balanced sentence, to say nothing of her deliberate obtuseness with regard to fact.

It’s also rather amusing that Brochu didn’t link to or quote West’s remarks in her piece. Don’t you think referencing his actual remarks would have helped her readers? She seemed too preoccupied with her rage to bother with due diligence.

How exactly is West an embarrassment to our country? Brochu doesn’t say; she manages to write seven paragraphs of absolute nothing.

We don’t need to fear those who worship Islam, Congressman. We need to fear bomb-strapped radicals who use their religion as an excuse to inflict their hate, and more often than you’ll ever understand, there’s a big difference between the two. Just as there’s a difference between the Timothy McVeighs of the world who would twist the teachings of Christianity to suit their evil tendencies.

Did Brochu actually do any research before publishing her piece? What has she been doing these “20+ years in journalism?” A simple Google search yields the truth: McVeigh was not a Christian. “Science is my religion,” wrote McVeigh.

West doesn’t get that, and why should he? Too many close-minded apologists are celebrating him as a hero for feeding into their own fears …

Just as too many close-minded partisans perverting the practice of journalism celebrate their own uneducated, anti-Christian, bigoted missives as fact thereby reinforcing their perceived stereotypes. ...

You tell 'er, Dana. It's really a shame when you can't tell between a Michael Moore or Rosie O'Donnell rant from a piece in a major newspaper.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Yes, the Democrat-media complex still smear the Tea Party and anti-Obama conservative Americans as vitriolic and racist, and most recently "the real enemy" who can "go straight to hell." Meanwhile in the real world, actual vitriol and (by the left's own standards) racism occurred at the hands of union protesters in Milwaukee, Wisconsin both Thursday and Friday.

Vandals super glued the locks of several doors and a parking gate at Messmer Preparatory School in Milwaukee. School officials believe the people responsible for the vandalism were protesting the visit of Gov. Scott Walker Friday afternoon.

Gov. Walker was expected to arrive at 1 p.m. to speak to kindergarten and first grade students about reading.

Late Thursday night, school officials were informed that building alarms had been set off. Then, Friday morning, they discovered that nine locks on the property's exterior doors had been sealed with glue. The doors tampered with included a parking gate, several doors to the building and even a church building door.

That was Thursday. Then on Friday, a throng of protesters converged on the school while reviled Republican Governor Scott Walker was inside. The protesters shouted such intolerant things as for the school to get out of their neighborhood (specifically Christians; Messmer is a Catholic school).

This is bone-chilling. Here is a throng of left-wing Democrats intimating children while at school and shouting that they should get out of town. You know what that kind of activity is called? (Used to be at least): Terrorizing. And it's the Tea Party that's compared to the KKK and Jim Crow-era bigots?? Puh-lease!

So, where does the racism part come in? Well, the president and CEO of the Messmer schools, Br. Bob Smith, is black. One of the principals of the three schools (who I don't believe was present at the protest) is also black. And, at least according to these online images -- I couldn't find ethnic data on their website -- most of Messmer's student body are black or another ethnic minority. When Brother Bob came out of the school (as you will see in the video below), he was quite obnoxiously harrassed. (You might say he was given the John Lewis treatment. Hey, who's to say Brother Bob wasn't spat upon by a racist white public union teacher protester?)

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air links to this video below and goes on to explain that Messmer is a “choice school,” it operates outside the clutches of public teacher union and boasts a +85% graduation rate. By alarmingly stark contrast the public school graduation rate of blacks and Hispanics, is 49% and 54%, respectively. No wonder Wisconsin's left-wing Democrats hate this school and seek to demonize and eliminate it!

Bret Healy at Big Government also writes about this protest, saying:

The event was a perfect storm for the unhinged Left: A chance to combine their absolute hatred of the Republican governor with their complete disdain for the nation’s longest running school choice program.

SEIU, AFSCME and Milwaukee Public School officials combined forces with Students for a Democratic Society, self-professed Hippies and others to march, sing, chant and yell at not only the governor, but the students and staff of Messmer Preparatory School.

The Messmer story is inspiring, and one I’ll tell in greater detail here soon. What’s really striking to me is this obnoxious display of thuggery comes onthe heels of the release of the MacIver Educational Choice Census, which shows that throughout Wisconsin, parents are embracing educational options. In Milwaukee, nearly 4 out of 5 children attend a school other than the one geographically assigned to them by the public school bureaucrats.

By the way, other than local Wisconsin affiliates, have any mainstream news media outlets covered this blatant videotaped exhibit of violence, vandalism, and racism? Of course not. It doesn't fit the liberal lie that it's the Tea Party that's violent, destructive and racist and that it's liberals/Democrats who aren't.

Spread stories like this far and wide, dear readers. The real documentable truth is out there; more people just need to see it.

*How do I know these violent protesters were Obama-supporting Democrats? Believe me, I know.

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

The world's most renowned "intellectual" actually learns something? From Selwyn Duke at AT.

Of all idiots, none is so useful as he who can masquerade as a genius. ...

... [S]ocialism has only failed every time it's been tried, but I guess Chomsky's renowned intellect has finally figured out a way to do the same thing over and over again and achieve different results.

But some people never learn, and in our time they're known as leftists. It's bad enough when a starry-eyed teenager gloms onto a demagogue and then registers surprise when the scorpion acts in accordance with his nature, but it's downright pathetic when an old man behaves as if he has been born yesterday.

And Chomsky, it seems, is continually born again yesterday. In the late 1970s, he defended the Khmer Rouge at the very time that those Cambodian communists were in the midst of a genocidal campaign that ultimately claimed 30 percent of their nation's population. He steadfastly refused to believe reports of Khmer Rouge atrocities, calling them part of a "disinformation" campaign targeting a group that, he said, could usher in not only "national liberation but also ... a new era of economic development and social justice." ...

Admittedly, today Chomsky acknowledges reports of Khmer Rouge atrocities. He just denies reports of Chomsky Khmer Rouge support. He has his own Year Zero, I suppose, and it started when reality became sufficiently heavy to make rationalization seem like Holocaust denial. Hey, that fellow in 1977 was a different Chomsky. Renowned intellectuals just don't make such mistakes. ...

The great Roman orator and statesman Cicero once said, "Any man is liable to err; only a fool persists in error." Chomsky exhibits that typical leftist inability to discern good from evil, friend from foe. If he'd been a rabbit, he would have hopped into the fox's lair well before getting so long in the tooth. And if he didn't live in the West's cocoon of safety and comfort, he would ages ago have been swept away in a whirlwind of his own design. He just doesn't learn.

Of course, we all can learn. But it requires that you're humble and sincere enough to admit error (at least to yourself) and are receptive to Truth. It also helps if you realize that, no matter how many people call you a "renowned" intellectual, you're perhaps not all that smart.

Let’s say a white guy goes on television, puts on an exaggerated Amos ‘n Andy “black voice” and proceeds to make fun of a black man whose politics the white guy doesn’t like. Actually, let’s say he goes beyond merely making fun of the black man. Let’s say he tries to make the black man sound downright stupid. Does that make the white guy a racist?

The correct answer is … it depends.

If the white guy is Rush Limbaugh and the black man is Barack Obama, then of course the white guy is a racist — according to liberals.

But if the white guy is Jon Stewart and the black man is Herman Cain, the conservative businessman seeking the Republican nomination for president, well, then, that’s another story.

The other night Jon Stewart went on his show, and while he didn’t put on blackface makeup and start tap dancing he did put on a “black voice” and proceeded to mock Mr. Cain in a way that would never be tolerated if a conservative had done it.

Yet liberals didn’t scream “racist” the way they do when they see some guy at a Tea Party rally or when conservatives so much as look askance at Barack Obama. Instead, they laughed. For them, it was a regular riot when Jon Stewart, someone they adore, made that conservative black guy sound like a dopey character in a minstrel show.

But why isn’t Jon Stewart a bigot, when Limbaugh and Hannity and O’Reilly would be tagged as racists if they had done the very same thing? That’s easy. Because Jon Stewart is a liberal and liberals aren’t racists. It’s a physical impossibility. Only conservatives are racists. And if you don’t believe me, ask any liberal.

Yes, this is really, really dumb, but liberals really, really believe it. This delusion stems from a deeply held belief that liberals are not just right about the issues and conservatives just wrong. It goes way beyond that. Liberals believe they’re morally superior to conservatives. And morally superior people are never racists. Racism is the domain of morally inferior people — you know … conservatives.

But we all know what Herman Cain’s real sin is, why liberals think he’s fair game. He’s a black man who has strayed from the liberal plantation. And that is something liberal elites — the supposed benefactors of black people in America — have a tough time dealing with.

Finally, a strategy in response to liberal criticism of black conservatives:

On the O’Reilly Factor recently, I told Juan Williams who was sitting in for Bill, that conservatives should do what liberals have been doing for years — they should play fast and loose with the word “racist.” They should promiscuously call every liberal who criticizes Herman Cain — or any other conservative black man — a racist. Not because it’s true, but precisely because it’s a lie.

Let’s see how those superior liberals feel when they’re the ones being slandered, when they’re the ones being maligned as racists simply because they oppose a black man’s conservative policies. Let’s see if they recognize that they’re the ones who perfected this form of slander, by calling conservatives racists simply because we disagree with President Obama’s liberal policies.

So, is Jon Stewart a racist for doing his Amos ‘n Andy routine to make fun of Herman Cain? Yes! Absolutely! And I will say that over and over again, every chance I get — even though I don’t believe it. And I won’t stop until my liberal friends finally get it.

I’ve thought of doing precisely this for quite a while. If liberals’ everyday speech comprise of phrases like “that racist George W. Bush!” or “that sexist Rush Limbaugh!” when neither such character assassination is warranted, why can’t conservatives do the same to liberals?

After all, not only did Jon Stewart pull the Amos n’ Andy routine that would’ve gotten any conservative fired in about six-and-a-half seconds, but notice he also accused Herman Cain of not knowing how to read, or at least not liking to read. Can you imagine if a <i>conservative</i> suggested that a black person had a problem with reading? He would be fired in <i>four</i>-and-a-half seconds! But, as Goldberg argues, Stewart gets away with that too because he’s a liberal and liberals by default aren’t racists.

To quote an old Bill Cosby routine: Right!

Incidentally, Stewart is so intelligent (like Obama) that he either misunderstood or misrepresented Cain’s demand for three-page Congressional bills. Cain was making a very reasonable and cogent argument; only a liberal like Stewart wouldn’t get it. Why he or his audience even thought that bit was funny is beyond me. It would almost be as stupid as if a liberal misunderstood or misrepresented the “three-fifths” clause of the Constitution. Oh, wait …

So from now on, perhaps I will say “that racist Jon Stewart!” And also “that racist Joe Biden.” Not only did he call Obama a “clean, articulate” black man—as opposed to an ebonics-speaking thug lookin’ like a fool with his pants on the ground—but he also said you couldn’t go into a 7-11 without an Indian accent. This is the man Obama picked as V.P.!?

From now on, I could easily speak of “that sexist Bill Maher” and “that sexist Bill Clinton.” And I’d be much closer to the truth. Rush Limbaugh has never called a woman a “tw@t,” let alone a stupid one, as Maher did recently before a laughing (and presumably mostly liberal) audience. He certainly hasn’t faced credible accusations of sexual assault by several women over the span of a decade, as Clinton has.

To conclude, then, I’d say I agree with this entire Bernie Goldberg article except for one thing: When he threatens to wantonly call liberals racist he says he does it because he knows it’s a lie. If I were to start doing it, it would be because I believe it’s the truth.

P.S. Herman Cain did appear on Fox & Friends and said he didn’t think Jon Stewart’s comedy “act” was racist. I think Cain is giving him too much credit.

Thursday, June 02, 2011

Yesterday it was reported that an unusual type of bling was hanging around Sarah Palin's neck while she toured NYC sites: a Jewish Star of David.

Why? According to NBC New York, Palin said:

“Today is the 44th anniversary of Jerusalem being reunited ... We want to call attention to that.”

A devout Christian wearing a Jewish star to show solidarity with Israel? Sounds good to me. I'm not offended in the least. Just like a man wearing a pink breast cancer ribbon (yes, I know men can get breast cancer too, but just stay with me), or a straight person wearing something in solidarity with gays. Or like when all my liberal (and often Jewish!) Obama-worshipers inserted "Hussein" as their middle name on their Facebook profiles during the 2008 campaign (because for some reason Obama's critics were being offensive in calling to attention his middle name).

But that's not how the Palin-haters saw it. A contributor at the liberal Huffington Post calls it an insult.

It's actually not the first time Palin wore a Star of David. She did so at Passover time as well. Don't know why I missed it, but the Palin-hating liberati sure didn't: The always embarrassing and perpetually profane dim bulb Wonkette wondered, "Is she a Jew now or something?" And some woman named Malia Litman who runs a blog devoted to Palin-bashing insisted Sarah was "desecrating" the star by wearing it.

She also wore one while visiting Israel in March. At that time, a writer at a blog called Opposing Views surmises she's trying to spice up her foreign policy credentials. Um, okaaay.

These are your tolerant, open-minded, intelligent liberals on display, folks.

Replete with PhotoShops of Trig next to a pulsating pole dancer (image right), and links to videos in which various Democrats mock Trig in profanity-laced tirades, Stuef has a good laugh with text such as this:

Today is the day we come together to celebrate the snowbilly grifter’s magical journey from Texas to Alaska to deliver to the America the great gentleman scholar Trig Palin. Is Palin his true mother? Or was Bristol? (And why is it that nobody questions who the father is? Because, either way, Todd definitely did it.) It doesn’t matter. What matters is that we are privileged to live in a time when we can witness the greatest prop in world political history…

What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded. ...

Outrageous. Some some folks complained to the advertisers on that site, and three of them pulled their ads. Papa John’s, Huggies and Vanguard. The editors at Wonkette defend the post:

“We beat up on Sarah Palin’s craven use of her son as a political prop. Child protective services should take Trig away.”

“On whose account are you requesting that Jack Stuef remove a post mocking Sarah Palin’s well-documented use of her special needs child as a political prop?…”

It’s easy to see that the left hates Sarah Palin with the hot, hot fire of a thousand suns. And the real reason for this hatred is Trig. They hate Trig with every fiber of their being. They hate him with a passion beyond description. Murder would not satisfy their hatred of Trig, because they hate most of all the fact that this baby was ever born.

If Sarah Palin had aborted Trig, she would be a hero to the left. But she kept him, she loves him, Down Syndrome and all. And they hate that.

The abortion ethic holds that only the perfect baby is worthy to be born. The abortion ethic holds that only the wealthy baby is worthy to be born. Trig stands as a living rebuke to the pro-aborts, who, in him, are revealed not to be pro-choice at all, but only pro-abortion. Trig Palin, by simply living, is a testament to the dignity and sanctity of all human life. The pro-abort left cannot abide, and cannot tolerate, his witness.

And so they make up lies and excuses for their hatred about Sarah Palin’s “exploitation” of her son. Of course, if Trig was never seen in her materials and appearances, they would claim that she was ashamed of him, that she was hiding him. It’s not that they see Trig that enrages them; it is that Trig lives at all. Modern liberalism is a philosophy of hatred, of jealousy, of death. The left’s reaction to Trig Palin is the logical expression of that philosophy.

Monday, March 21, 2011

From James Lewis at American Thinker, a real scathing and no-holds-barred of the intellectual moronic-ness that liberals like Krugman project:

Paul Krugman recently was quoted as telling the world he doesn't follow contemporary conservative news commentary. Krugman's open contempt for the dominant political philosophy of the Western Enlightenment, including most of American history, is incredibly revealing. It's not just one New York Times guru of Political Correctness. No, I've run into Krugman's mental lockbox among "educated" people all my life, people with advanced degrees who just mouth the platitudes of the left. In all their education they never learned to open their minds.

It is pathetic. Intellectually, Paul Krugman has just run up the white flag. That's how we have to see the self-censorship of the left. In a free marketplace of ideas they can't survive. It's our job to restore the free media and give Americans a choice again.

* * * * *

Ever wonder why the left doesn't teach history? It's one disaster after another for them.

Until the organized left decided to purge our schools and universities of our own Western traditions, "conservatism" was called "liberalism," because it celebrated liberty of thought, liberty of speech and religion, freedom of association, and free ownership of productive assets, including the fruits of one's own labors. Today China, India and Russia have thrown off their Marxist shackles and their economies are suddenly thriving, and we can still see the wonders of South Korea right next to the Stalinist nightmare of the North.

But Paul Krugman, economist extraordinaire, just doesn't get it. What is it you don't get, Professor Krugman? ...

* * * * *

The left doesn't need official censors because they carry their own censors in their heads. But just to make sure, they also work to block the free flow of information to everybody else. That must be why the media have to witchhunt Sarah Palin and Clarence Thomas on a regular basis, a smart conservative woman and a smart conservative black man. It's why they have to keep smearing good and decent people. If their own followers ever figured out the scam the media couldn't compete.

Liberals are constantly telling their obedient flocks what not to listen to, like Fox News. I've never heard a conservative radio host tell the audience not to read the New York Times. Who would listen to that? We stay astonished by the Mind-locked Media, to see what kind of disinformation they pump out every day. The liberal media provide daily mind-food for conservatives, just like the old Kremlinologists who would look at air-brushed photos of Soviet apparatchiks standing on top of Lenin's tomb, to see who was in power and who got purged.

We criticize their ideas, while they go on poisoning the wellsprings. That's why they fell for global warming fraud and for con artists like Bernie Madoff. If you have no conscience and want to make a million bucks, try selling GM Volts to liberals. But sell them an expensive accident policy at the same time, for the inevitable moment when their motor buggy gets crushed on the freeway. You can get them coming and going, if you have no conscience. If you do have a conscience you can only tell the truth and hope.

Leftist censorship often seems like a source of power for the left, but it's also a great weakness, because reality keeps finding them out. Ever since he took office Obama has looked stunned that nothing works the way he expects. Maybe that's why he's playing so much golf, to get away from all the bad news. Baffled. Why don't the Muslims and Israelis do what I tell them? Why doesn't the economy rebound from my "stimulus"? He doesn't get it. The more things get out of control, the more confused he feels. It wasn't supposed to be this way. ...

Saturday, March 19, 2011

"Join us to make April 4, 2011, a day to stand in solidarity with working people in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and dozens of other states where well-funded, right-wing corporate politicians are trying to take away the rights Dr. King gave his life for."

No, they're not. What these "right-wing corporate politicians" are trying to do is the will of the people who elected them to balance the state budget.

They're trying to end the incestuous cycle of government workers — paid by taxpayers — extorting more money from those taxpayers who can't flee the state like Democratic lawmakers and must show up at their jobs every day. ...

We don't think King was fighting for the right of government union workers to have taxpayer-funded health plans that cover Viagra.

Monday, March 14, 2011

... The Tea Party rallies were a salute to democracy at its finest, with peaceful protests around the nation leading to a resounding election victory. Unlike the leftist rallies in Wisconsin, the Tea Party protests are what democracy looks like.

Democracy is not illegally going on strike. Democracy is not violating medical ethics laws by handing out phony sick notes. Democracy is not legislators fleeing their states. That is not a filibuster, which requires being in the chamber. That is anarchy. That is subversion. That is leftism, where the rule of law does not matter.

Democracy is not sending death threats to GOP lawmakers over a policy dispute. That is terrorism.

Democracy is not bringing in Jesse Jackson to create the illusion that a financial dispute is a civil rights issue.

Madison, Wisconsin is not Selma, Alabama. The fight over collective bargaining is not the fight to end slavery. To link these disparate events is an insult to anybody who has ever been through slavery, the Holocaust, genocide, or any other real tragedy.

At the risk of disappointing an entire over-privileged race that I belong to, there is not a single middle-class, Caucasian, white-collar government worker in America having their civil rights violated by another Caucasian politician.

Governor Walker was compared to Hitler, but Walker didn’t throw the protesters into ovens.

He was compared to Gaddafi, but Walker didn’t shoot the protesters. He did not even lightly turn on any fire hoses to clean them up after a week of them laying in their own filth.

None of the protesters were enslaved. A few were carried out of the capitol in handcuffs. Unlike the fear and seriousness in Dr. Martin Luther King’s eyes in the 1960s, several of these protesters responded by smiling at the cameras and yelling, “Hi mom!” ...

Monday, March 07, 2011

Has anyone noticed that all the union (i.e, liberal/Democrat) protests going on in Wisconsin and elsewhere is slightly lacking the "new tone" of civility that liberals/Democrats were calling for in the wake of the Tucson shooting? Mary Katherine Ham has. Here's a short video she hosted on the left's "new f**king tone!"

Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.

"Racist!" some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.

Maschek, 28, had bravely stepped up to the mike Tuesday at the meeting to issue an impassioned challenge to fellow students on their perceptions of the military.

"It doesn't matter how you feel about the war. It doesn't matter how you feel about fighting," said Maschek. "There are bad men out there plotting to kill you."

Several students laughed and jeered the Idaho native, a 10th Mountain Division infantryman who spent two years at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington recovering from grievous wounds. ...

You can't blame the poor young skulls full of mush, can you? After all, isn't Anti-Americanism a bona fide field of study at Columbia? (Sure seems like it.)

I wonder if these punks would've treated Ahmedinejad this way.

Maschek has more bravery and integrity in the nail of his pinky toe than any of these anti-American cretins or their Commie professors. And they know it.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

What must it be like to live in the world of a liberal/Democrat? A conservative/Republican merely looks at Obama funny and they're branded as a racist bigot everywhere from the pages of the NY Times to the news shows of CNN, MSNBC and the networks.

But when real racism shows its ugly head on the Democrat left -- and it always happens on the Democrat left -- it's like it never happened.

Are liberals just living in a fantasy world? Or are they that blind from their own hatred and intolerance that they are completely incapable of self-awareness?

In the past few months, black Congressman Allen West (R-FL) has been smeared with impunity in the liberal media. And a couple weeks ago dozens of "progressive" ralliers are caught on video gleefully wishing that black conservative Justice Clarence Thomas be lynched and/or "sent back to the fields."

But you wouldn't know that from following the Democrat-media complex.

Enter former Godfather's Pizza CEO turned radio host Herman Cain. Cain is a rising star in the conservative movement and very close to throwing his hat in the ring for the 2012 presidential run. Before this black man flies too high, however, the oh-so-tolerant left mobilizes to keep him down. Just like Thomas, West, Condi Rice, etc., etc.

Earlier this week Cain spoke at CPAC. (watch the fantastic speech at The Right Scoop.) Liberals, never ones to deal with reality well, couldn't understand how a black man could speak at a conservative convention without being spat upon or lynched or something like that. So here's how one prominent liberal website explains it:

Dana Loesch at Big Government informs us of this disgusting piece of "journalism" at the liberal AlterNet site. In it, Cain is referred to as a black "garbage pail kid" (?), a monkey, and a "race minstrel." (The author is evidently threatened by the presence of a strong, eloquent and successful black conservative as most liberals are of a strong, eloquent and successful conservative woman like Sarah Palin.)

This is your tolerant left on display, people.

Like I suggested above, to be a liberal is to live in an upside-down fantasy world. Up is down. Black is white. Right is wrong. And wrong is justified. And so you got Frank Rich at the ever-devolving NY Times can tilting at the windmill of imaginary Islamophobia while actual violence and hatred from Muslims toward Americans and all non-Muslims increases.

Similarly, you have the NAA(L)CP and media outlets like MSNBC decrying the non-existent racism of the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and other such bogeymen. Yet when actual racism (and misogyny and violence and anti-Semitism, etc.) is spewed from the Democrat left virtually on a daily basis, don't come looking for these the self-appointed protectors of civil rights to cry foul. When liberalism is your agenda first and last, principle, integrity and common decency all go by the wayside.

Look for more racism against Herman Cain in the future. As long as strong, eloquent and successful black conservatives like him continue to gain national prominence, the racist Democrat left will be there to keep him down.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Congratulations, Bill Maher. You get to be the first one covered in this shiny new feature of the VM blog! Because, boy, are you F.O.C.!

Mr. Maher has been flapping his gums a lot lately, especially in light of last week's terrible Tucson shooting. (In fact, it was this tragic event and the Democrat-media complex's reaction to it that inspired me to create this new feature.)

One can write a health-care-bill-sized tome about the white-hot hate and violent vitriol that steams from this man's soul. But today I want to focus on what the man said this week about conservatives and their imaginary role in inspiring crazed nut Jared Loughner to shoot up a crowd of people.

This past week Maher has blamed the shooting on -- in addition to right-wing rhetoric on the radio and Fox News -- right-wing gun culture and also on the (presumed) lack of ObamaCare. Ohhh-kaaaay ...

For some reason, on Wednesday this mental colossus got invited onto the Tonight Show (why, Jay Leno? Why???). On this show he actually faced an audience that disagreed with him! Here's what he said [via NewsBusters]:

MAHER: ... [T]hat's the rhetoric they love. The right-wing loves, the go-to rhetoric for them is, "Wouldn't it be fun to kill the people we disagree with?" You know, they try to put across this false equivalence. [To audience] No?

AUDIENCE: NO!

MAHER: Really? Then, do you read?

AUDIENCE: Yes.

Note his condescending retort: His audience disagrees with him, so they must not be well-read.

MAHER: Have you -- have you seen what people have said? Have you seen what Sarah Palin says? You know, she talks about "Don’t retreat, reload.” She says it like a pull toy that's broken, every five minutes she says this. ...

No, she doesn't! She said it just once, right after she quit the Alaska governorship. Rather, it's you Palin-hating lefties who repeat it like a broken pull toy!

Besides, you want to talk about a false moral equivalence? The only way "Don't retreat, reload" in any way, shape, or form is akin to "Wouldn't it be fun to kill people we disagree with," is if you're a mindless conservative-hater like Bill Maher.

MAHER: Left-wingers don't talk that way. And also, left-wingers -- even if they do sometimes make a gun analogy or something -- their audience isn't hysterical. They're already talking the right-wingers to people who are hysterical and are irrational are highly armed to begin with.

... So, so stop telling me that the left and the right are both crazy. Yes, there are crazies on the left, but they're not the same -- they're not gun crazy. They're not violent crazy.

This claim is patently false and absurd. Not only have no conservatives of any legitimate stature ever wished for an opponent being killed or even injured, but such hate-filled speech is very common on the left. The would include rhetoric coming from the mouth of ... wait for it: Bill Maher!

That's right. Here's a list going back a more than a decade [with thanks to Noel Sheppard and others at NewsBusters for their yeoman's compilation job]:

“You know it’s sad when you see crazy senseless deaths like [Pentagon shooter Joe Stack] we can only ask why. Why couldn’t it have been Glenn Beck?” — March 5, 2010

* * * * *

"If we killed two random, rich greedy pigs; blew them up at halftime at next year’s Super Bowl. Or left them hanging on the big board at the New York Stock Exchange, you know, as a warning, with their balls in their mouths, I think it would really make everyone else sit up and take notice."— February 20, 2009

John Ridley: They said “We wish he would die.” I mean, it was (?) hate language.

Barney Frank: They said the bomb was wasted. [Laughter and applause]

Maher: That’s a funny joke. But, seriously, if this isn’t China, shouldn’t you be able to say that? Why did Arianna Huffington, my girlfriend, I love her, but why did she take that off right away? ...

Ridley: It’s one thing to say you hate Dick Cheney, which applies to his politics. It’s another thing to say, “I’m sorry he didn’t die in an explosion." And I think, you know…

Maher: But you should be able to say it. And by the way...

Frank: Excuse me, Bill, but can I ask you a question? Do you decide what the topics are for this show?

Maher: Yeah, I decide the topics, they don’t go there.

Frank: But you exercise control over the show the way that she does over her blog.

Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. [Applause] ... I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.

Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.

John Kerry : Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.

Maher (and his audience): [Laughter and applause]

— October 6, 2006

* * * * *

“Earlier today, a rental truck carried a half a million ballots from Palm Beach to the Florida Supreme Court there in Tallahassee. CNN had live helicopter coverage from the truck making its way up the Florida highway, and for a few brief moments, America held the hope that O.J. Simpson had murdered Katherine Harris.” — November 30, 2000

I defy anyone to find anything from a remotely prominent voice on the right saying anything remotely caustic. You won't be able to. So, when Bill Maher say that the "go-to rhetoric" on the right is "Wouldn't it be fun to kill the people we disagree with?" and that left-wingers don't talk that way, you are F.O.C.

* * * * *

P.S. Here's a bonus: While the twin towers and Pentagon still lay smoldering, Maher called the 9/11 terrorists brave and us cowardly:

Look at what they did. First of all, you have a whole bunch of guys who are willing to give their life. None of [them] backed out. All of them slammed themselves into pieces of concrete ... These are warriors. ... We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building? Say what you want about it, it's not cowardly. — Sept 17, 2001

But don't you dare question his patriotism! And don't you dare accuse him using hateful violent rhetoric!

Saturday, January 15, 2011

In the controversy of the pep rally/rock concert style Memorial for those who lost their lives in Saturday’s Arizona tragedy, the mainstream media reported that the “Together We Thrive: Tucson & America” T-shirt given to mourners as they entered McKale Center was the idea of University of Arizona brass, not the Obama administration.

Yet the “Together We Thrive” slogan dates back to a post to Obama’s own Organizing for America in a Feb. 11, 2008 post by self-described “globalist” John Berry IV.

University of Arizona brass did not originate the “Together We Thrive” T-shirt. They merely recycled it for Obama—and recycled it in time for what should have been a dignified Memorial for the dead.

If you were a mourner who took home a “Together We Thrive” T-shirt have a look at the bottom of your shirt. “Rocking America and Rocking the Vote” is a common theme of the DNC, and it’s right there on your Memorial T-shirt memento.

Welcome to the era of Obama, where cheering and standing ovations, for the first time in history, became part of the Requiem for the Dead. ...

It doesn't get any more shameful than this. And is it any wonder that the same media who are now bashing Sarah Palin for her supposedly inappropriate use of "blood libel" are covering up this despicable fact?

Thursday, January 13, 2011

... It is incontrovertible that inciting violence is, and always has been, the domain of the political left. It is they who fomented violence during the 1960s, and who used violence and murder throughout the last century on every continent on the globe to achieve their political ends.

They will now attempt to use the Tucson tragedy to place Americans in a position where, if we do not capitulate to their renewed calls for gun control and the stultification of free speech, it will be inferred that we are just fine with members of Congress, judges and little girls being gunned down in the street.

What adds insult toinjury– or disaster to tragedy as the case might be – is the necessity that existed for political factions to capitalize on this horrible event. In the face of the incremental bloodless coup that is taking place in America, progressives' adversariesmustexploit the left's reaction to the shooting. Inadditionto the obligatorydamagecontrol called for in order to neutralize the wholesale liberal propaganda being churned out by the establishment press, they have no choice but to draw attention to progressives' dogged and misplaced efforts to tie conservatives to Loughner's actions.

For the left, the cause and target mustbe guns, talk radio, free speech, etc. It must be because they are losing, and they are desperate. The outrageous, groundless rhetoric to which we are being exposed by the left is a product of their desperation.

You see, they didn't expect us to fight. Americans who do have an idea of who we are and what our nation represents were supposed to shut up and die – or more accurately, to stay asleep, to lay down and just let the socialists have their turn. Why? Simply because they want it.